Pete, welcome and thanks for your comments. Your testimonial is similar
to some of my own experiences, and the contrast to NDB
(you reminded me they were absorbed by
Ameritrade in private mail - thanks) is pretty striking.
But, there is customer service, and customer service. My description
of the purpose of this thread was perhaps less than clear. I need to quickly restate it.
1 - Complaints regarding trade executions and other mistakes which cost $$$$
to the customer, sort of "retro-service" if you will, seem to be more common wrt
E*Trade then say Charles Schwab, even though Schwab has more market share.
2 - I see 2 possible sources for these complaints:
a. Honest mistakes, as if by overworked folks
b. Failure to execute the fiduciary responsibility
of a stock broker
My experiences, and those of others on these threads, include arrogant,
angry, terse, and deceptive responses.
This fact may tend to rule out possibility a) above in some
or even many cases of customer "retro-service".
3. If E*Trade fails to execute its fiduciary responsibility, causing damage,
we would normally have a tort. However, if there is a systematic pattern of customer abuse,
including uniform mis-statements by customer service representatives,
it might be possible to legally demonstrate that E*Trade intentionally abrogates it's
fiduciary responsibility, for example, by discovery of customer service
training materials to that effect, or
by uncovering some customer service representatives with
a human conscience. This would be a criminal matter.
4. My admittedly less than formal study of SI postings wrt E*Trade "retro-service"
suggests there is a consistent, deliberate pattern to deceive the customers,
perpetrated by E*Trade, through customer service. My informal data includes a confrontation
with an apparently very senior E*Trade official, whose motivations were highly suspicious
to me. (However, this person's business courtesy (and professionalism) was
abominable, maybe he is just a crackhead (g)). The sheer magnitude of complaints around SI is
consistent with the actual existence of such an intent
by E*Trade. All the above is my opinion of course, but
I have shared my TOTAL thoughts on the matter with you,
I think.
5. The business will fail, one way or the other, if the
the theory expressed in 4. is true.
If we can assemble a MORE FORMAL set of data which
reflects on the truth value of 3., then we can establish
the safety of an E*Trade short.
I also should reveal that I remain an E*Trade customer at
this time, although that may change very soon. I remain
an E*Trade customer ONLY because my present employer uses
Options-link for options and also for ESP. E*Trade knows
this, and perhaps my particular experience reflects "sharp"
business application of their temporary advantage.
Best to all,
and my apologies for the length of this posting!
darned hard to edit!
SAF |
